Non-branched microcysts of the pancreas on MR imaging of patients with pancreatic tumors who had pancreatectomy may predict the presence of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN): a preliminary study
To evaluate whether pancreatic parenchymal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are associated with pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) on histology.
Materials and methods
Retrospective study approved by institutional review board. One hundred patients (48 men, 52 women; mean age, 53.2 ± 16.29 [SD]) underwent MRI before pancreatectomy for pancreatic tumors analyzed by two independent observers blinded to histopathological results for the presence of non-communicating microcysts and pancreatic atrophy (global or focal) beside tumors. MRI findings were compared to histopathological findings of resected specimens. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The association between parenchymal abnormalities and presence of PanIN was assessed by uni- and multivariate analyses.
PanIN was present in 65/100 patients (65%). The presence of microcysts on MRI had a sensitivity of 52.3% (34/65 [95%CI, 51.92–52.70%]), a specificity of 77.1% (27/35 [95%CI, 76.70–77.59]), and accuracy of 61% (61/100 95%CI [50.7–70.6]) for the diagnosis of PanIN while global atrophy had a sensitivity of 24.6% (16/6 [95%CI, 24.28–24.95]) and a specificity of 97.1% (34/35 [95%CI, 96.97–97.32%]). In multivariate analysis, the presence of microcysts (OR, 3.37 [95%CI, 1.3–8.76]) (p = 0.0127) and global atrophy (OR, 9.79 [95%CI, 1.21–79.129]) (p = 0.0324) were identified as independent predictors of the presence of PanIN. The combination of these two findings was observed in 10/65 PanIN patients and not in patients without PanIN (p = 0.013 with an OR of infinity [95%CI, 1.3–infinity]) and was not discriminant for PanIN-3 and lower grade (p = 0.22). Interobserver agreement for the presence of microcysts was excellent (kappa = 0.92), and for the presence of global atrophy, it was good (kappa = 0.73).
The presence of non-communicating microcysts on pre-operative MRI can be a significant predictor of PanIN in patients with pancreatic tumors.
• In patients with pancreatic tumors who had partial pancreatectomy, MR non-communicating pancreatic microcysts have a 52.3% sensitivity, a 77.1% specificity, and a 61% accuracy for the presence of PanIN with univariate and with an odds ratio of 3.37 with multivariate analyses.
• The association of global atrophy and non-communicating microcysts increases the predictive risk of PanIN.
KeywordsCarcinoma, pancreatic ductal Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Cysts Pancreatectomy
Branch duct IPMN
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm
Pancreas, non-communicating micro cysts
MR imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography
Magnetic resonance imaging
- Pancreatic carcinoma
Pancreatic ductal carcinoma
Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia
Solid and pseudo papillary tumors
We would like to thank Dale Roche who performed the language editing of this paper.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Marie-Pierre Vullierme MD.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Dr. Tony Ibrahim and Pr Vinciane Rebours kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.
Both authors have significant statistical expertise.
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because the study was retrospective upon preoperative MRI.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• case-control study
• performed at one institution
- 2.Klöppel G, Lüttges J (2001) WHO-classification 2000: exocrine pancreatic tumors. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 85:219–228Google Scholar
- 4.Hruban RH, Maitra A, Goggins M (2008) Update on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 1(4):306–316Google Scholar
- 7.Distler M, Aust D, Weitz J, Pilarsky C, Grützmann R (2014) Precursor lesions for sporadic pancreatic cancer: PanIN, IPMN, and MCN. Biomed Res Int:474905Google Scholar
- 9.Brune K, Abe T, Canto M et al (2006) Multifocal neoplastic precursor lesions associated with lobular atrophy of the pancreas in patients having a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 30(9):1067–1076Google Scholar
- 10.Ito H, Kawaguchi Y, Kawashima Y, et al (2015) A case of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia that was difficult to diagnose preoperatively. Case Rep Oncol;22 8(1): 30–36Google Scholar
- 12.Tirkes T, Shah ZK, Takahashi N et al (2018) Reporting standards for chronic pancreatitis by using CT, MRI, and MR cholangiopancreatography: the consortium for the study of chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, and pancreatic cancer. Radiology 00:1–10Google Scholar
- 15.Canto MI, Hruban RH, Fishman EK et al (2012) Comparison of CT, MRI, and EUS for detection of prevalent pancreatic lesions (per patient analysis) frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals screening for early pancreatic neoplasia (CAPS 3 study). Gastroenterology 142(4):796–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Peters MLB, Eckel A, Mueller PP et al (2018) Progression to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: results of a simulation model. Pancreatology:1–7Google Scholar
- 26.Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V et al (2012) International consensus guidelines 2012 for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology (12):183–197Google Scholar
- 27.Balci C (2011) MRI assessment of chronic pancreatitis. Diagn Interv Radiol 17:249–254Google Scholar